Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[precogmiles]

That's just silly. And you don't seem to realize you're undermining your own claims too. If 'random' means unpredictable how can even precognition predict random outcomes? 'Predicting the unpredictable' is an oxymoron. And precognition itself implies determinism in which case there can be no 'random' outcomes. That's great for precognition but at the same time you can't also insist that systems can't work because outcomes are 'random'. It's a mess of contradictions.

That is just semantics. Do you know what random is at a deeper level of reality?

Do you know all the theories if causality? And how would you prove those theories?

Do you know the difference between a statement like;
The sun will rise tomorrow.
And...
1+1=2

This is basic philosophy.

[Steve]

No Steve, you're the one who doesn't get it. There is no logic to precognition or any evidence for it other than anecdotal. 

You dont know any better.

And if you know systems don't work why bother to even test them at all?

If you're referring to the tests in my videos, they were specifically to explain what people aren't understanding. People learn best by seeing.

That's irrelevant to statistical tests or simple win rate. I'm talking about judgment based on criteria common to all methods of generating results. Is that the explanation you're putting in your next video?

Joe, more data means more proof. You're mixing apples with oranges.

My next video will include more explanations of why large volume testing is needed. Not this 200 spins bullshit. Even 100,000 spins isnt enough.

And you've really got no idea about precog - the science, the testing, the proof etc - and that's fine. You can be critical. You're incorrect. But I really don't care.

[Joe]

The fact is that scientists, engineers, doctors, marketers, economists, etc etc use statistical inference all the time to test theories and hypotheses, quality control etc and they find it very useful, even indispensable. It's used increasingly because there is more and more data to make sense of. It can be used equally well on any data, as long as you interpret the results sensibly.

Steve is right that if there are independent ways of verifying effectiveness, it reduces the reliance on other kinds of tests, and AP is unique in that respect. But precog and systems are on a par in that that there is no other corroborating evidence available. Precog might have some accompanying theories which explains why it could work, but they're just that : speculation. Speculation isn't grounds for making do with small samples in the way that correct predictions about where the ball falls allows you to make do with smaller tests when using a computer.

So you can't do million spin tests for precog, and it isn't necessary for systems either. The fact that it's possible for systems doesn't make it necessary. Most people can't code and even for those that can, most systems coded are pretty simple, and simple systems are unlikely to win. I agree with Steve on that.

[precogmiles]

The options are

1.Precog and systems need a million spins
2. Systems need a million spins but precog doesn't
3. Precog needs a million spins but systems don't
4. Neither precog or systems need a million spins

if the only 2 options you accept are 3 and 4 then I have nothing to say about that. It seems you are the based one.

If you pick options 1 and 3 then Good luck with that you'll probably have to wait 20 to 30 years for that.

[Joe]

I pick only option 4. How does that make me biased?

[Moxy]

If you can't understand the difference between someone claiming 1 +1=3 and somebody else claiming if they train hard enough that they can improve their ability to do arthmetics faster, then that is your problem.

One is impossible the other is a skill.

You just hope for the day someone proves 1+1=3 . No amount of testing, small or large is going to prove this.

This is wrong. We have examples of this in all sports leagues. Those teams with the best skilled players win the league more times than teams with good tactics. Skill is the ultimate determinant
Have you got an example for this?
If I remember correctly it was you who originally posted that website because you didn't want to accept the results from MPR. I was just using your own website as evidence against your unfounded scepticism.

My issue with probability is When it is used to make models or claims based solely on inference. First comes reality then comes statistics. It is not the other way around.

One day I'll be able levitate.  I just know it.  We do it every day to a tiny extent.  It's called jumping but if I can force to suspend myself mid-air a tad longer then the possibilities are endless.

Wish me luck.

[precogmiles]

I pick only option 4. How does that make me biased?

Do we need any testing at all?

[precogmiles]

One day I'll be able levitate.  I just know it.  We do it every day to a tiny extent.  It's called jumping but if I can force to suspend myself mid-air a tad longer then the possibilities are endless.

Wish me luck.

Good luck.

[Moxy]

That's just silly. And you don't seem to realize you're undermining your own claims too. If 'random' means unpredictable how can even precognition predict random outcomes? 'Predicting the unpredictable' is an oxymoron. And precognition itself implies determinism in which case there can be no 'random' outcomes. That's great for precognition but at the same time you can't also insist that systems can't work because outcomes are 'random'. It's a mess of contradictions.

You are on 🔥, G.  🔥, I tells ya,🔥.

[Moxy]

Good points.

I wonder if moxy and joereally are willing to wait 20 years for a precoger to complete a million spins? Or is it just an attempt to allow system players to keep claiming 1+1=3 and not have to provide any evidence.

Have not you been reading my posts?

What if someone got extremely lucky and then claimed he gots the precog? 

Or what if someone got extremely lucky and claimed it was a system?

Or what if someone got extremely lucky and claimed he was extremely lucky?

How would you pragmatically react to all three without being biased?  Key word: biased.

[winforus]

Joe, Steve imo explained it perfectly.

The difference is that you don’t have enough experience with precogniton, although now you are more open-minded to.

Once you get enough experience - you will understand as to what we are saying here.

[winforus]

Have not you been reading my posts?

What if someone got extremely lucky and then claimed he gots the precog? 

Or what if someone got extremely lucky and claimed it was a system?

Or what if someone got extremely lucky and claimed he was extremely lucky?

How would you pragmatically react to all three without being biased?  Key word: biased.

You clearly were too busy trolling, as I have already addressed those questions

[Moxy]

If you pick options 1 and 3 then Good luck with that you'll probably have to wait 20 to 30 years for that.

You are neglecting the scientific process and therefore inherently/technically biased even if you don't want to be. 

For the sake of science, B.  Science.

[Moxy]

Joe, Steve imo explained it perfectly.

The difference is that you don’t have enough experience with precogniton, although now you are more open-minded to.

Once you get enough experience - you will understand as to what we are saying here.

Don't forget levitation.  That stuff is real man.

[Moxy]

That is just semantics. Do you know what random is at a deeper level of reality?

Do you know all the theories if causality? And how would you prove those theories?

Do you know the difference between a statement like;
The sun will rise tomorrow.
And...
1+1=2

This is basic philosophy.

You conveniently left out this axiom.

The scientific process has no fixed timeline.  It's not single-generational, not multi-generational; it's all-generational.

It doesn't care about your expedient desire to get on the field and play.  It cares about refuting or confirming beyond all doubt.